Federal Court judge criticises barrister, former ANU law lecturer David Richards

Justice John Halley made the remarks in the Federal Court during proceedings brought by the barrister, David Richards, who indicated he would disclose the judge's comments to the ACT Bar Association.

A recent judgement shows Mr Richards sought, in two related cases, to recover damages and compensation from William Zi Wen Han and various companies.

He brought the proceedings in connection with the proposed float of an "e-commerce and retail business", and a mooted Queensland resort development.

Justice Halley said Mr Richards, a former senior law lecturer at the Australian National University, met Mr Han, a businessman, while on a trade mission in China in 2015.

The lawyer subsequently emailed Mr Han to express his interest in establishing a business relationship.

They did so but relations soured in October 2019, leaving the pair to settle their differences in court.

MORE COURT AND CRIME NEWS:

Justice Halley's judgement shows he dismissed all claims advanced by Mr Richards in one of the proceedings in December 2022.

In the other, the judge found the barrister had established an entitlement to be paid $338,500 for his work as a project manager on the proposed Lindeman Island resort development in the Whitsundays.

While Mr Richards was therefore partially successful in his claims, Justice Halley offered some stinging criticism of the barrister in a lengthy judgement.

The judge said Mr Richards, who was "extensively cross-examined", was "not an impressive witness" and his evidence "required careful scrutiny".

Justice Halley singled out three matters he described as "particularly concerning".

The first were ultimately abandoned claims Mr Richards had undertaken significant amounts of legal work for Mr Han and acted as in-house counsel for companies within the White Horse Group, which owned Lindeman Island before it was sold late last year.

Mr Han is a director and shareholder of White Horse Global and each of the group's Australian companies, many of which Mr Richards also once directed.

"These claims were advanced notwithstanding that [Mr Richards'] practising certificate was governed by the Legal Profession (Barristers) Rules 2021 (ACT) and did not appear, or at least was not submitted by Mr Richards, to permit him to provide such legal services," Justice Halley said.

The judge also took aim at Mr Richards' decision to send Mr Han two letters of demand on his letterhead as a barrister after the pair's commercial relationship soured.

Finally, Mr Richards emailed a White Horse accountant invoices and threatened to take legal action "without further notice" if they were not paid.

The barrister later conceded the invoices had "no legal basis".

The judge said Mr Richards had explained this by saying the threat was not genuine and the invoices had been rendered "to hopefully enter into negotiations and to get out of Lindeman Island and be done with it".

"Each of these three matters demonstrated a cavalier and aggressive willingness by Mr Richards to use his professional status as a barrister to advance his commercial interests," Justice Halley said.

"Making claims for the payment of money on a barrister's letterhead, which were known not to have a legal basis, for the purpose of achieving a satisfactory commercial resolution reflects very poorly on Mr Richards' credit."

Clarification: This story has been updated to reflect that Mr Richards is no longer employed by the Australian National University.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: